Fortunately, no one was injured in the confrontation. Days into the Bundys trial, the government began disclosing information in its possession that, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was arguably useful to the defense and should have been produced to the defendants well before trial. As additional documents came forth, the district court held a series of hearings, eventually deciding that the trial could not go forward and that the indictments must be dismissed with prejudice. Under Brady, [t]he prosecution is trusted to turn over evidence to the defense because its interest is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. Amado v. Gonzalez, 758 F.3d 1119, 113334 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 6 UNITED STATES V. BUNDY 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999)).
A district court is imbued with discretion in the supervision of proceedings before it and may dismiss an action when, in its judgment, the defendant suffers substantial prejudice and where no lesser remedial action is available. United States v. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073, 1087 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Must have been a tough decision for the 9th. Conservative, Pro-2A ranchers vs BLM, two parties they hate.
Great. Everything worked out in the end, despite the loon who almost got some Bundy supporters killed.